Do you believe in GOD?

Post Reply New Topic

Also, simultaneity is non-existent, at least according to Einstein. An event can only be simultaneous with another event only if they are actually the same event. However, the events of this physical universe occur in series rather than in parallel. One after the other... that is a sequence even in regard to the operation of this universe.



Even without a physically temporal precedence for this physical universe, the matter and energy components to it are not from a vacuum of nothingness. The power necessary to produce such matter is tremendous, and yet through all the finagling of words you would convince yourself that such would just happen.



What if this universe were created from another one which has different laws? As people ask regarding God: Where did that one come from? And the one before that, and so on. The laws of another physical universe would only exist once the event of its beginning have occurred, so it would rely on its predecessors for the component energy of which they contain.

Well, it is called "the relativity of simultaneity" and honestly, I really believe that the real issue is that simultaneity depends on the frame of reference, not that it is non-existent.

The problem with sequences, is that in order to really have something as a sequence, you still have to be able to define past, present, and future, and if simultaneity is relative, then no definition for past, present, and future can really work.


Well, no, the matter and energy components could have existed for all time. If they exist for all time, we don't have to explain them, because they've never NOT existed.

I don't see myself as "finagling words", rather, I see you as grossly missing the point, most likely because if you are wrong on the cosmological argument, then your damned cult loses another of its poor rationalizations to exist and hold truth.


If a sequence is eternal, then frankly, it is just turtles on turtles, there is no final explanation necessary.

Even further, yes, it could just rely on the energy of a previous universe. That's pretty explicit in my explanation, as is the reason for how it could be possible, as effectually one could hold that previous universes have an infinite amount of energy somewhere in the mix, either at the start, or if the rules of one universe are such that it can spontaneously generate energy.

My damned cult? Really, now that is interesting. What is the definition of "cult" which you are using?

I am not going to bother playing an idiotic game with whatever insult I choose to use. It is just as stupid as questioning my use of "bastard" if I happened to call you one.

Are you trying to increase your public image of stridency or just going insane?

Are you kidding? iamnotaparakeet, it is obvious to most people that you are an intelligent individual who has been mentally hijacked by a conservative Christian faith. This is not just saying "you're a conservative Christian and we disagree with you", this is saying "you're a conservative Christian, and this seems to force you into having to take stands on issues that no sane person would really take". I mean, to a lot of people, you are on the level of a holocaust denier, on the level of a unrepentant Stalinist, or on the level of a person who ardently defends Lysenkoism or some such.

So, am I just being strident or going insane? No, I regard you as somewhat of a mental cripple. In all fairness, most people are flawed on all sorts of various issues, just most people aren't young earth creationist conservative Christians.

If it will make her happy, I can believe in her.

Thanks for the quasi-compliment, however am I the one who is hijacked by conservative Christianity or are the people who view me as being hijacked as such actually hijacked by other schools of thought which are contradictory. In Soviet Russia, for example, the indoctrination of the people was performed primarily by the government operated schools. This may seem bad to you even, at least in regard to the actions of Stalin and so forth, but atheistic ideology was also drilled then also as it is today in most government schools. Such indoctrination, or "hijacking", at a young age allows for greater retention of such ideology when older. Even without being in the public school system, people argue on the basis of consensus and find it difficult to believe that so many experts could be wrong and all that spiel.

Y'know, the defense "Am I merely crazy, or am I a sane man in a world gone mad?" really just tends to prove that you actually probably are crazy.

I mean, your rationale really isn't plausible for a number of reasons:
1) Most people in America, including the teachers, aren't atheists, so how the heck are they all promoting "atheist propaganda"? Heck, I've even taken high school biology classes where Intelligent Design was somewhat promoted, so I kind of doubt that the propaganda machine is as tight as you want to think it is.
2) "How could all the experts be wrong?" Is a perfectly fine excuse for a layman. I've already pointed out that in most fields, an outsider really isn't that capable of understanding most things, and even studying this subject for a few years might not grant one enough knowledge on the matter. Even further, "how can all the experts be wrong?" is still reasonable given how science works, as scientific progress is one of experts with knowledge beyond our comprehension all trying to test ideas, so the idea that out of all of these brilliant experts, they are wrong, and one of us poor little idiots is right, (particularly a poor little ideologically driven idiot) is just somewhat ridiculous, not impossible, but very ridiculous.
3) Anybody with a mild understanding of fundamentalist Christianity knows that it is an epistemically isolated, and dogmatically driven kind of organization, that is such that nobody can really ascribe to it any level of rationality, but rather the proper response is to consider it a thought disease.

In Soviet Russia, ideology hijacks you!

I was just gonna say 'sure, why not' to the thread title, but now I'm steering clear of this thread, it's heading down a familiar road.

This about sums it up for me, people who believe in god do so by placing a simplistic set of rules at the head of their argument. There is so much that we do not understand about the nature of space and time. To say there must be a cause and that cause must be a supernatural wonder being (and I just love how this wonder being gets exempted from that rule) is to reduce the argument to below the level of our current thinking. Remember Keet it was once thought utterly implausible that the earth was anything but flat and at the centre of the heavens. But then you, far from just using the cosmological argument are actually a YEC which means you have absolutely no interest in finding out the truth.
Not only does a belief in god ignore the truly amazing potential for continued discovery, it also ignores the well known and documented ability of the brain to hallucinate and delude the user.

The problem is that your hypothesis is ad hoc.

Cool story bro

No i do not beleive in God!

Remember: the exclamation mark adds extra validity and truth value to any statement.

No, the logical negation operator (!) reverses the truth value.